Archive for the ‘Judeo-Christian’ Category

The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My word, let him speak My word faithfully. ‘What is the chaff to the wheat?’ saith the Lord. ‘Is not My word like as a fire?’ saith the Lord, ‘and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,’ saith the Lord, ‘that steal My words every one from his neighbor.’

– Jeremiah 23:28-30

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the Heavenly places.

Share this:

Like this:

‘Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’

– Jeremiah 23:29

Understanding the Documentary Hypothesis

Historically speaking, the theory that Moses ‘did not write the Pentateuch actually has been around for more than a millennium.’ Even so, the vast majority of believers, both Jew and Christian, ‘still maintained that Moses was its author’ well into the 17th century. It was around this time that the Dutch-Jewish philosopher Benedict Spinoza began to attack this common-held belief about Moses. This led to his eventual excommunication from Judaism by the Rabbinnical authorities some years later. This ‘questioning’ of the authorship of the Bible continued in the following manner:

– French physician Jean Astruc created the original Documentary Hypothesis in 1753 by listing the different names of God used in the Torah.

– After many changes and alterations, Karl Graf came out with a revised version of the ‘initial hypothesis in the mid-nineteenth century.’

– Julius Wellhausen then resummarized Graf’s Documentary Hypothesis and proceeds to preach and promote it ‘in European and American scholarly circles.’

– In the end, the refutation of Moses as author of the Torah, known as as the Documentary Hypothesis, also became ‘known to many as the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis.’

Since these earlier times, attacks upon the Judeo-Christian belief in the authorship of Moses and the first five books of the Bible have, in fact, ‘been thrust consistently into the faces of Christians.’ A staunch belief in the Documentary Hypothesis has become near universal in secular settings. One sources notes that this still unproven theory has garnered a cult-like belief in others, especially non-believers:

It is becoming increasingly popular to believe this theory…Numerous commentaries, religious journals, and Web sites consistently promote it. And many professors who teach religious courses espouse it. Undoubtedly, it is champion among the topics discussed in classes on a critical introduction to the Bible. In most “scholarly” circles, if one does not hold to the Documentary Hypothesis (or at least some form of it), he is considered fanatical and uneducated.

To sum it up, the Documentary Hypothesis boldly claims that, instead of being written by Moses around 1,200-1,500 years ago, the ‘Pentateuch was compiled from four original source documents -designated as J, E, D, and P.’ It further contends that these four theoretical documents were all created ‘by different authors, and eventually were compiled into the Pentateuch by a redactor (editor).’ According to the classic Documentary Hypothesis, the conjectured dates of authorship can be seen in the following manner:

Alleged Authorship of the Torah

I. The J (Yahwehist) document was supposedly written around 850 B.C

II. The E (Elohist) document was supposedly written around 750 B.C.

III. The D (Deuteronomist) document was supposedly written around 620 B.C.

IV. The P (Priestly) document was supposedly written around 500 B.C.

V. The R (Redactor) document, or final version of the Torah, was supposedly written around 200 B.C.

These unproven, and basically unprovable, source documents, have now been accepted as historical fact by nearly all of those who ascribe to the Documentary Hypothesis. In many ways, the main point of their claims has to openly and boldly deny that Moses wrote the first five books of the Holy Bible. This is spite of the fact that these dates have no scientific validity whatsoever. As one scholar notes:

Every dating of the pentateuchal ‘sources’ rests on purely hypothetical assumptions, which ultimately only have standing through the consensus of scholars.

– R. Rendtorff

Some believe there is an underlying reason why the followers of the Documentary Hypothesis insist on such late dating of the authorship of the Torah. Their real goal may little more than an attempt to discredit Scriptures and, with it, Christianity. The denial of Moses as the author of the Torah usually provides a stepping stone for further denials concerning the Bible. Here are just a few statements by those who believe in the Documentary Hypothesis:

One of the certain results of modern Bible study has been the discovery that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses.

– Gottwald, 1959

It is obvious that the Book of Genesis was not written by a single author (Moses).

-Rendtorff, 1998

The most determined biblicist can see that there is no way Moses could have written the Torah.

– McKinsey, 1995

At present, however, there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses – or by anyone per­son.

– Dr. Richard E. Friedman, University of California at San Diego

This conventional wisdom and denial of Moses’ authorship has now managed to permeate the entire world of academia and Biblical scholarship. Indeed, it is a given that statements such as those just cited ‘have made their way into thousands of classrooms.’ The results are quite tragic, as more and more students become non-believers due to this pernicious fallacy known as the Documentary Hypothesis. One source notes: ‘Sadly, before hearing skeptics and liberal scholars present their ineffectual arguments for such beliefs, students frequently become so spellbound by the intellectual façade and bold affirmations of certainty that they rarely even consider the evidence at hand.’ The evidence, if seen and studied carefully, still seems to indicate that Moses was indeed the real author of the Pentateuch. The scholarly facts, even today, are as follows:

The fact is that there are Old Testament specialists who have been trained in schools like Harvard and Princeton and Chicago University, who have received earned doctorates, who have become skilled in all of the relevant languages and archeological discoveries, who have attended and participated in all of the leading scholarly conventions, and who have authored texts that are studied by college and seminary students all over the world, who still adhere to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Given all of the misleading scholarship out there these days, it should come as no surprise that when Andrew Brown, author of The Darwin Wars, wrote about a conversation he had with England’s leading Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, he became flabbergasted when ‘Dr. Sacks defended the proposition that Moses wrote (or dictated) the first five books of the Bible’. Andrew Brown surprised response was simply: ‘That is the most shocking thing I have ever heard an intellectual say.’ Nevertheless, more and more prominent scholars are now beginning to break with Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis and even going so far as to attack it as illogical and irrational. Here is one disgruntled scholar on the need for change:

Redaction history and tradition history are [not helpful]…in explaining the origin of the Pentateuch. There is a preference for the view that much of the Yahwistic material was written later than originally thought, implying a much longer period of oral and written transmission of many of the Pentateuchal narratives. The way literary criticism and tradition history were applied in the past is largely invalidated by current folklore research which should be used as a corrective as well as to devise a new theory on how the Pentateuch originated.

– Van Dyk, P. J., Current Trends in Pentateuch Criticism.

Most importantly, scholars of various stripes are also beginning to tear away at the specifics of the Documentary Hypothesis, most notably the four source document theory (J, E, P and D), which presupposes four unique original sources for the Pentateuch. Noted scholar Professor Kitchen now admits that ‘even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective…tangible, evidence for either the existence or history of ‘J’, ‘E’, or any other alleged source-documents’. His admission of error is starting to become more typical among the liberal circles of secular Biblical scholarship. Indeed, one writer claims that ‘certain liberals have been forced to admit that the JEPD hypothesis is really without merit.’ Just recently, a man named Umberto Cassuto, a professor at the University of Jerusalem, wrote a book called The Documentary Hypothesis. In the book, he freely confesses that the main arguments for Wellhausen’s theory are ‘without substance.’ Furthermore, he states that the entire Documentary Hypothesis field of study happens to be ‘founded on air’ and will inevitably become ‘null and void’. In summary, ‘there simply is no support for the documentary theories of the higher critics, and there is much evidence against them.’

Refuting the Documentary Hypothesis

The Documentary Hypothesis, sometimes called ‘the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis after the two men, K.H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen, who gave it its classic expression’, presupposes that the five Books of Moses, namely the Torah or Pentateuch, are actually derived from four different source documents, called J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly Code). These original sources can be organized in the following manner:

J- Starting with Genesis 2:4, it includes large portions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

E- Includes Genesis 15 and Exodus 3:15 for example

D- Includes most of Deuteronomy

P– Starting with Genesis 1:1, it includes large portions of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers and all of Leviticus.

When going about the business of refuting the Documentary Hypothesis it is necessary to organize the arguments in fairly precise manner. One Biblical scholar R.N. Whybray, as well as others, has concluded that ‘the Documentary Hypothesis is founded on four presuppositions.’ Those four assumptions, with the pertinent refutation just beneath them, can be listed as follows:

ASSUMPTION: An evolutionary, unilinear approach to Israelite history.

REFUTATION: Most scholars agree that ‘Wellhausen built his theory on a now-discredited evolutionary philosophy with its roots in the thought of G.W.F. Hegel.’ Since then, the whole philosophy of Hegelianism has been thoroughly discredited. Because of this, it seems more than likely ‘that the history of Israelite religion cannot be portrayed in the simple, highly evolutionary manner that Wellhausen thought possible.’

ASSUMPTION: The possibility of dividing the Pentateuchal texts on the basis of stylistic criteria.

REFUTATION: Some of the earliest proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis claimed ‘they could easily separate one text from another on the basis of style.’ In reality, the entire Torah is written in standard Biblical Hebrew. The only real way a single style could ever really be found for each source document, namely J, E, P, and D, ‘would be if each monotonously and rigorously maintained a highly idiosyncratic style.’ This has not been the case when it comes to the Pentateuch.

ASSUMPTION: A simple compilation of documents by redactors.

REFUTATION: According to the claims of the Documentary Hypothesis, later editors of the Torah, called redactors, supposedly used the documents they had availible and then proceeded to use a ‘cut-and-paste’ procedure where they simply cut ‘up each document and then joining the whole into a continuous narrative.’ There is no actual proof that this sort of organizational effort ever existed. Indeed, ‘no true analogy to this somewhat bizarre editorial procedure is available.’

ASSUMPTION: Easy determination of the purposes and methods behind the documents and redactions.

REFUTATION: The founders of the Documentary Hypothesis believed they would be able to easily ‘deduce the purposes and methods of the redactors, despite the fact that enormous cultural differences existed between the scholars who studied Genesis and the men who wrote it.’ Scholars then began to speculate in a somewhat bizaare manner about the aims of the original writers and later editors (redactors). To be specific ‘it was assumed that each writer aimed to produce a single, continuous history but would tolerate no inconsistency, repetition, or narrative digressions.’ However, the editors (redactors) ‘were said to be utterly oblivious to every kind of contradiction and repetition.’ These strange assumptions bear no historical accuracy or proof that they are true.

It must be emphasized that the Documentary Hypothesis blithely assumes that the Torah was originally made up of four documents which were all ‘first composed as continuous, single narratives and only later were brought together and edited into the present work.’ This false assumption led to many errors in Biblical analysis. To bolster the arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis, many different ‘modifications were proposed.’ Problems with the original Hypothesis just caused their reasoning to become that much more complex and illogical. Some of the ‘modifications’ included ‘dividing the four sources into even smaller sources…whereas others reduced the number of sources, questioning the existence of E altogether.’ When it comes to the authorship of the Pentateuch, here are the seven major claims of the Documentary Hypothesis:

The Seven False Claims of the Documentary Hypothesis

1. TWO NAMES OF GOD: Torah Passages which refer to God as Yahveh originate from the J source document, while passages which refer to God as Elohim originate from the E (or P) source document.

2. DUPLICATION AND REPETITION: Genesis contains some duplicate stories and repetitions suggest they were originally portions of two different documents woven together into one text.

3. CONTRADICTION AND CONFUSION: Genesis contains contradictions which ‘indicate the existence of the separate documents.’ This implies ‘that one document had one tradition, but a second had another.’

4. LANGUAGE AND STYLE: The language and style of the original source documents vary. J is a masterful storyteller, while P is prosaic and wordy. Each document also seems to have its own preferred vocabulary.

5. MEANING AND THEOLOGY: Each original source document, ‘when extracted from the present text of Genesis, shows itself to have been a continuous, meaningful piece of literature.’ The source documents appear to have ‘a specific literary and theological purpose behind each.’

6. COMMON SENSE: Even a simple, basic reading of the Torah seem to indicate that the text ‘obviously involve more than one source.’ The best example is Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, ‘which can hardly come from a single source.’

7. PRIESTS AND LEVITES: The confusion over the ‘Israelite priesthood found in the Pentateuch is best explained by the Documentary Hypothesis.’ While some passage imply that all levites are priests, other passages state that only the descendants of Aaron are. This suggests at least two separate sources.

To summarize, it has been these seven claims that the Documentary Hypothesis has done fairly well in trying to explain. The fact of the matter, is that Wellhausen’s theory explains problematic parts of the Torah without ever suggesting that they may not be problems at all. What follows are detailed refutations of the seven false claims of the Documentary Hypothesis.

FALSE CLAIM #1: TWO NAMES OF GOD:

– The theory that passages using Yahveh (J source) or Elohim (E source) for God come from separate sources ‘has been challenged from several directions.’ To cite one example, Genesis 22:11 uses the name Yahweh even though it is considered to be a part of the E (Elohim) source document. Also, at the very beginning of the Torah, there is a combination of the two names into ‘the unusual Yahweh Elohim.’

– Biblical scholar M.H. Segal also shows that the two different divine names, Jahveh and Elohim, are used interchangeably in other Scriptures which are definitely known to have originated from a single source. In short, later Biblical passages use the two names for God as if the author saw the two names as simply different terms for the same God.

– The so-called decision of E and P sources not to use the name Yahveh (J) is simply a fictitious assumption. Likewise, there is ‘absolutely no reason that J should avoid’ using the word Elohim.

– The unexplained use of the two different names for God can also be surmised without resorting to the Documentary Hypothesis. In sum, Biblical scholar Umberto Cassuto claims that these two names simply ‘bring out different aspects of the character of God.’ Yahweh is seen as the covenant name of God, emphasizing his special relationship to Israel, just as Elohim speaks of God’s universality as God of all earth. Seen simply, ‘Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.’

– Another scholar named Segal also contends that ‘the interchange of the divine names is often for the sake of variety or reflects popular usage’.

– Biblical scholar Whybray proposes that ‘the alternation of names may be unconscious because of the [singular] identity of the two names’.

– It can rightfully be claimed that Yahveh and Elohim have ‘semantic overlap’. When the emphasis is about God as the ‘universal deity…Elohim is used’. Similarly, when a passage that mentions ‘God as covenant savior…Yahweh is more likely to be utilized’. Also, when neither aspect of God ‘is particularly stressed, the names may be alternated for variety or indeed for no specific reason’.

– The use of Yahveh and Elohim as different names of God doesn’t necessary imply two different sources for the text. Indeed, it appears there are ‘many examples from Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources of a single god being called by several names in a single text.’ It should be also noted that no ‘Egyptologist would ever use divine names for source criticism’.

– In conclusion: ‘the criterion of divine names, the historical and evidential starting point for the Documentary Hypothesis, is without foundation. It is based on misinterpretation, mistranslation, and lack of attention to extrabiblical sources’.

FALSE CLAIM #2: DUPLICATION AND REPETITION

– Some believe ‘the use of doublets and repetition as evidence for multiple documents in Genesis is perhaps of all the arguments the most persuasive for the modern student’. In reality, it is ‘the most spurious and abused piece of evidence’. Given everything, the use of duplication and replication in Biblical passages simply signifies ‘rhetorical concepts’ which made use of these exact forms of expression.

– On the contrary, when it comes to many ancient texts ‘there is no stronger indication that only a single document is present than parallel accounts.’ The use of what is called ‘Doublets’, menaing ‘two separate stories that closely parallel one another, are the very stuff of ancient narrative.’ They are, in fact, precisely ‘what the discriminating audience sought in a story.’

– Given the examples of other documents, it can be rightfully claimed that ‘simple repetition, first of all, is common in ancient Near Eastern literature.’ This can be seen ‘in the Ugaritic Epic of Keret’ where a certain King Keret receives specific instructions to go to the land of Udum, ruled by King Pabil, and then demand to marry the King’s daughter named Hurriya. The carrying out of these instructions is simply a repetition of what the original instructions actually state in the text.

– Repetition in the Bible is found in both the Old and New Testament. One involves the Book of Genesis 24, where the servant of Abraham meets the future wife of Isaac and the encounter is then repeated as a story. In the Book of Acts, Paul’s encounter with Christ on his way to Damascus is described three different times (Acts 9:1-19, 22:3-16, 26:9-18).

– In summary, and ‘in light of the love for repetition and parallelism in Hebrew narrative and poetry’, it should come as no surprise that ‘Hebrew narrative is sometimes redundant even within a single story.’ This practice may seem meaningless or pointless in the English language, but in its original tongue it is considered to be quite beautiful.

FALSE CLAIM #3: CONTRADICTION AND CONFUSION

– The Biblical account of Noah and the Flood first states in Genesis 6:2 that he should bring one pair of every kind of animal, but then it says in Genesis 7:2 to bring seven pairs of clean animals, This contradiction can easily be explained in that ‘provision had to be made to ensure that there would be sufficient livestock after the flood.’

– The entire flood story, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, is actually two sources (J and P) combined together to create one contradictory story. The reality is that ‘recent research has demonstrated the whole narrative to be far more coherent than was once recognized.’

– Some followers of Wellhausen’s theory have attempted to cite a discrepancy between the flood’s 40 days of rain and also its apparent 150 additional days of rain. This argument is completely wrong-headed and a misreading of Genesis. In reality, ‘the present chronology in the text is not the confusion it is sometimes implied to be.’

– One scholar named Emerton still insists that ‘there is a discrepancy between the 150 days of rain and the 40 days of rain’ in the story of Noah and the flood. To be sure, ‘the text nowhere implies that the rain lasted 150 days.’ Instead, the 150 days refers to ‘the time from the beginning of the flood until the water had abated enough for the ark to ground.’ With this in mind, the flood story can be said to be both ‘structurally unified and formally of a type of literature (flood narrative) that is far older’ than Wellhausen’s theory dates it.

– In conclusion, the story of Noah and the flood uses an ‘ancient narrative technique, as evidenced in its profound concern for narrative structure’. Given everything written down in Genesis concerning the flood, this account also ‘cannot be said to be chronologically confused.’

FALSE CLAIM #4: LANGUAGE AND STYLE

– The Documentary Hypothesis claims to have found ‘radically different styles’ of writing in the Pentateuch and finds this to be proof that it actually had at least two different sources (J and P). This is simply the ‘result of artificially dividing the text.’

– So-called differences in writing style found in the Torah cannot be proven because nobody knows anything ‘of the common speech of the people of ancient Israel’. Differing word choices could simply be ‘for the sake of a special nuance in a given circumstance, or indeed for the sake of variety’.

– Recent development of computer analysis of the Biblical text now shows that the so-called triple authorship underlying the Book of Genesis is unlikely. Instead, ‘there is massive evidence that the pre-Biblical triplicity [J, E, and P] of Genesis’ may well be a unity instead. The Documentary Hypothesis claim that Genesis was ‘worked over by a late and gifted editor into a trinity’ is basically considered to be false.

FALSE CLAIM #5: MEANING AND THEOLOGY

– The original Documentary Hypothesis contended that the evidence for multiple source documents, which then became the Pentateuch, included differences in metaphysical meaning and theology found in the texts themselves. The fact remains, however, that splitting a text into two opposing sources is actually quite easy. In short, opponents of Wellhausen have clearly proven ‘it is not difficult to separate a single Biblical narrative into two artificially complete documents.’ Because of this, any ‘theological analysis’ becomes ‘all the more tenuous.’

– Even the most staunch supporter of the Documentary Hypothesis has trouble these days in taking seriously any of the broad or sweeping generalizations concerning ‘the theological background of Genesis’.

– Under continuing assault by recent Bible scholars, the theological arguments promoting ‘the Elohist has disappeared from view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fading from existence.’ One scholar named Whybray has gone far in showing that ‘consensus for a theology of the Yahwist among critical scholars is collapsing.’

– In conclusion, the hypothesis claiming theological differences in the Pentateuch ‘has no value as a guide for continued research.’

FALSE CLAIM #6: COMMON SENSE

– Appealing to their view of the first five Books of Moses, which presupposes Moses did not write it, the Documentary Hypothesis and its adherents claim that common sense dictates in determining that the Pentateuch must have had more than one author who lived much later than Moses. However, recent authors who support the Documentary Hypothesis are now urging more ‘caution’ strongly suggesting that confidence in Wellhausen’s theory is waning and ‘that confidence in the criteria has eroded considerably’.

– In growing desperation, supporters of Wellhausen are starting to rely heavily ‘on specific texts as justification for continued adherence to the hypothesis.’ This is spite of the fact that interpretation of these specific Biblical passages are quite varied and heavily disputed today.

– One scholar makes the point that, even though it may be possible that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may originate from separate sources, these particular sources most probably have ‘nothing to do with the four documents of the Documentary Hypothesis.’

– In conclusion, no matter what is involved ‘there is no text in Genesis which is best explained by the Documentary Hypothesis.’

FALSE CLAIM #7: PRIESTS AND LEVITES

– The Documentary Hypothesis contends that, since there is a discrepancy as to who is actually a Priest (a Levite or descendant of Aaron), there must be at least two authors responsible for the Torah. It also claims to have the ‘best explanation of why the term Levite is used inconsistently in the Old Testament.’ Nonetheless, there is little historical evidence to prove this to be the case.

– The reality is that, when it comes to the question of who exactly is a Priest, ‘a better solution can be obtained by reading the Pentateuch as a work that was substantially produced, as the text affirms, during the period of the Exodus.’

– Similar attempts at finding original source documents underlying the Greek classics the Iliad and the Odyssey proved to be popular in the last century, but are now considered little more than ‘antiquarian scholarly curiosities.’ It is to be hoped ‘that the same fate awaits their sister theory, the Documentary Hypothesis.’

Judaism’s Refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis

Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time and the compilation of evidence.

– ApologeticsPress.org

Remember, the main theory of Wellhausen and company is that the Torah ‘was written by several different authors between about 950 BCE through 450 BCE, at which point it was assembled into the present single document, probably by Ezra.’ One should keep in mind that ‘this hypothesis is pretty much universally accepted by secularists.’ Even so, Judaism has a few resounding refutations to this theory. They can summarized as follows:

The Samaritan Pentateuch- The Samaritans have their own five books of Moses which is nearly identical to the Torah. However, Somaritans ‘have not shared a common tradition with Jews since the division of the United Monarchy following the death of King Solomon.’ This means that their Torah, and indeed both Torahs, must have written previous to Ezra (450 BC). This is because the Samaritans ‘would not have accepted a book composed by Ezra.’

Mention of Jerusalem- There is absolutely no mention of Jerusalem in the Torah, meaning that it was probably written at the time of Samuel or before, because the city of Jerusalem had become ‘the center of Judaism from the time of King David (1000 BC) up until the present.’

Religious Documentation- If Ezra (450 BC) assembled the Torah from different documents (J, P, E, and D) then there would most probably be evidence of their existence somewhere in the historical record (950-450 BC). This has not occurred. In fact, ‘no copies of the alleged pre-Ezra documents have ever been discovered anywhere, nor are they ever mentioned in any ancient literature.’ Logically speaking, if the pre-Ezra had been considered so religiously important to Judaism ‘it is implausible that they quickly and entirely disappeared.’

Talmud Without Torah- At the same time that scholars of the Documentary Hypothesis reject the Torah as historically false, they also place great emphasis on a certain passage in the Talmud (Bava Basra 109b) that speaks of the existence ‘in ancient Israel a priesthood descended from Moses’. From this single verse, they claim that these priests must have written the E source document.

Two Names for God- The Talmud many times mentions God’s two character traits – the trait of mercy and the trait of justice. Mercy is represented by the name YHVH while justice is represented by Elohim (Midrash Braishis Rabbah 73:3).

Different Styles in the Torah- Advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis point out that different parts of the Torah are written in different styles. There is a simple explanation for this. The Talmud Tractate Megilah 31b states that ‘Deuteronomy was written by Moses – it is a speech given by Moses, rather than having been simply dictated to him by God. Based upon this, we can understand why different portions of the Torah are written in different styles although they actually have a Mosaic authorship.’

In conclusion, the scholars who developed the Documentary Hypothesis were woefully ignorant of Judaism and Jewish folk-lore. Because of this, Judaism’s refutation of Wellhausen’s theology is especially convincing and accurate. Amused by all the fuss, one Jewish scholar simply states: ‘Rather than refuting the single authorship of the Torah, Bible critics have merely rediscovered the midrash.’

The Slow Death of the Documentary Hypothesis

If new approaches to the text, such as literary criticism of the type advanced here, deem the Documentary Hypothesis unreasonable and invalid, then source critics will have to rethink earlier conclusions and start anew.

– The Redaction of Genesis by Rendsburg

Is the Documentary Hypothesis a dying theory? Does this mean that Biblical scholarship can now move on into the 21st century, instead of being stuck in a discredited 19th analysis made by Wellhausen and others? Did Moses, in fact, write the first five Books of the Bible? According to some scholars, the answer to all these questions is yes. Even the on-line reference site Wikipedia, which is still in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis, is honest enough to admit it:

While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis-notably its claim that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC-continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century.

– Wikipedia, Documentary Hypothesis

The number of former believers and ex-followers of Wellhausen, and his theory concerning the authorship and dates of the Pentateuch, happens to be growing larger with each passing day. Many of them have realized that the general claim about the Torah being based upon four sources, namely the J, E, D and P source documents, is, in the end, utter nonsense. Some have gotten quite angry with Wellhausen’s continuing success and acceptance among modern Biblical scholars. Here are just a few opponents of the Documentary Hypothesis as it stands today:

The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise.

– BibleArcheology.org

Gorden J. Wenham points out that there has been a significant change regarding the Wellhausen documentary hypothesis. In the past, rejection of this hypothesis had been from orthodox Jews and conservative Christians. However, questioning of the documentary hypothesis today has come from mainline scholarship.

– HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE: METHODOLOGY OR IDEOLOGY? by Eta Linnemann

The whole structure of the Documentary Hypothesis is so vitiated with obscurantism and circular reasoning on the basis of unproved and unprovable hypotheses that it hardly deserves the status of true scholarship at all. It appears rather to be an exercise in biased subjectivism that shuns any serious consideration of conflicting evidence.

– Who Wrote the Bible? A Summary Critique, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr

The Documentary Hypothesis must be abandoned. Regardless of the theological presuppositions with which one approaches the text, and regardless of whether one wishes to affirm the tradition of Mosaic authorship or move in new directions, one must recognize the hypothesis to be methodologically unsound.

– BibleArcheology.org

Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis has come to an end. Other major scholarly views of the 20th century…are cratering. Nothing substantial, however, has replaced these views.

– Rendtorff, Rolf, The Paradigm Is Changing: Hopes – and Fears

It is now accepted that the documentary hypothesis is hampered with serious difficulties.

– Van Dyk, P. J., Current Trends in Pentateuch Criticism.

We must reject the Documentary Theory as an explanation of the composition of the Pentateuch. The theory is complicated, artificial, and anomalous. It is based on unproved assumptions. It uses unreliable criteria for the separation of the text into component documents.

– Moses H. Segal, professor emeritus at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem

The Wellhausen hypothesis...must be perceived as an exercise in subjectivism rather than a scientific treatment of the objective data bearing upon the date of the composition of the Pentateuch. The whole concept of differing recensions of the Mosaic tradition, a J-document originating in Judah and an E-document developed in the Northern Kingdom, has in this century been called into serious question by disillusioned Wellhausians like Wilhelm Moeller, B.D. Eerdmans, Johannes Pedersen, and Ivan Engnell, all of whom completely reject the whole Documentary Hypothesis as an artificial, modern occidental type of interpretation totally unsuited and irrelevant to ancient Semitic literature.

– Who Wrote the Bible? A Summary Critique, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr

These days, the old truths of Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis are becoming less and less accepted with each passing year and continue to be thoroughly discredited by a growing number of scholars and researchers. Indeed, the assumptions of the past concerning the actual origins of the Pentateuch ‘have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous’ as well as ‘exceedingly complex’. The simple historical facts of Wellhausen’s theory are now gone with the wind. As one noted scholar opines:

The theories current in Old Testament studies, however brilliantly conceived and elab­orated were mainly established in a vacuum with little or no reference to the Ancient Near East, and initially too often in accordance with a priori philosophical and literary principles.

– Kenneth Kitchens, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament

The tried and true J, E, P, and D source documents, which continues to be the foundational cornerstone for the Documentary Hypothesis have also become invalidated by more and more current researchers. In his work The Redaction of Genesis, scholar Rendsburg openly proclaims that ‘the standard division of Genesis into J, E, and P strands should be discarded’. He blames their inadequacy on the fact that the Documentary Hypothesis is an old 19th century theology that has been hopelessly outdated. With today’s growing knowledge about the ancient world, Rendsburg states ‘there is much more uniformity and much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than generally assumed’. This means that scholars are once again facing the same conclusion of the past, that Moses truly is the author of the Pentateuch . In the meantime, the Documentary Hypothesis, and all that it came with it, continues to pass away, to die, slowly but surely.

Moses Wrote the Torah, the Pentateuch

An objective and truly scientific handling of the evidence can only lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles were absolutely correct in assuming the genuineness of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

– Who Wrote the Bible? A Summary Critique, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr

When one finally becomes convinced that the Documentary Hypothesis is indeed a incorrect theory, the question remains as to who wrote the Torah, also called the Pentateuch. Traditional Judaism has always believed that Moses was the author of the first five Books of the Bible and Christianity followed suit in the centuries after its formation. There is still every reason to believe that this is the historical truth even though the existence of Moses still cannot be scientifically proven. Considering the severity of laws espoused in the Torah, many Bible researchers say this indicates that it must have been written by Moses, before the people ever slipped into idolatrous practices. One auther states the following:

Consider the implications of Moses’ instructions to his people as recorded in Deuteronomy 13 and 17…In these two chapters we find the death penalty prescribed for any individual, family, or community that became involved in idol-worship. In the time of Josiah, or even in the time of Hezekiah, there was scarcely a community in all of the kingdom of Judah that was not infected with idolatry. Had such a law been propounded and carried out with rigor, it is safe to say that at least 50 percent of the total population would have been stoned to death. No school of prophets or priests would ever have ventured to propound such severe measures…these passages in Deuteronomy fits only a time in the history of Israel when the entire nation was committed to the worship of Yahweh alone. There is no known period which fits into this framework but the time of Moses and Joshua.

Two recent books also bolster the claim that the Book of Genesis may well be a unified document with only one actual author. One of these is called Before Abraham Was, by Kikawada and Quinn, and it shows ‘an INCREDIBLE thematic unity and artistry of the composer of Genesis 1-11.’ The other book is The Redaction of Genesis, by Rendsburg. This book goes far in proving that there truly ‘an INCREDIBLE linguistic unity and artistry of the composer of all of Genesis.’ Slowly, more and more modern scholars are returning to the belief that the Torah was written at a much earlier date than that espoused by the Documentary Hypothesis. Here is just one example of this phenomenon:

In the light of these considerations, the objective evidence of the text and of all pertinent historical records bearing upon the career of Israel leads us back to the genuineness of the Mosaic date as the only plausible period for the composition of the Pentateuch…Suffice it to say that the indications in the Pentateuch of a pre-Conquest time of composition of the books of Moses are altogether compelling.

– Who Wrote the Bible? A Summary Critique, by Gleason L. Archer, Jr

In Judaism, Genesis through Deuteronomy was always considered to be a singular work, usually called the Book of the Law. This is cited in 2 Chronicles 25:4 and Mark 12:26. This makes good sense because even a quick glance at the content ‘of its individual components will confirm that each book presupposes the one that precedes it.’ One scholar notes astutely:

Without Genesis, Exodus reads like a book begun midway; without Exodus, Leviticus is a mystery; and so on. They were not intended to be five separate volumes in a common category, but rather, are five divisions of the same book. Hence, the singular references: “the Law” or “the Book.”

– ApologeticsPress.org

Given this tradition, it seems incredible that the Documentary Hypothesis was ever believed or copied. One should remember, however, that the propenents of Wellhausen’s theory were neither Jewish nor Christian believers. It is safe to assume that they had ulterior motives in creating the Documentary Hypothesis. They knew full well that to prove that Moses did not write the Torah was to also discredit, and perhaps eventually, destroy the Judeo-Christian tradition. As one author contends:

Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you prove that Jesus was totally mistaken and not the infallible Son of God he claimed to be. Upon your faith in Moses as the writer of the five books attributed to him rests also your faith in Jesus as the Son of God. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ without believing what Moses wrote.

– Genesis and Evolution, by M.R. DeHaan

One should also take into account the fact that the authorship of Moses is a given througout the Holy Bible, including the New Testament. Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times about how Moses wrote the law of God. Here are just a few pertinent passages from Scriptures:

– Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. (Exodus 24:4)

– The LORD said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words…’ (Exodus 34:27).

– Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD. (Numbers 33:2).

– Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests. (Deuteronomy 31:9).

– The law was given through Moses. (John 1:17)

– And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

– For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. (Acts 15:21)

In addition, authors of the New Testament ‘showed no hesitation in affirming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.’ Even Paul agreed with this, stating: ‘For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law,’ It is rather ironic that ‘both Jesus’ disciples and His enemies recognized and accepted the books of Moses.’ Christian believers should take care to understand that the authorship of the Torah should not be taken lightly and should feel assured in the belief that Moses wrote it. One scholar notes:

A final reason that one must defend the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, instead of sitting by idly and claiming that “it doesn’t really matter who wrote it,” is because Jesus Himself acknowledged that “the Law” came from Moses….The truth is, by claiming that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch, one essentially is claiming that Jesus was mistaken.

‘Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’

– Jeremiah 23:29

The Legend of St. Jack, Patron Saint of the United Kingdom (UK)

Long before the United Kingdom ever came into being, the Christian Church had certain age-old traditions about different sorts of Christian crosses. The Cross of St. George was a simple square cross with one horizontal line intersecting a vertical line. The Cross of St. Andrew was traditionally seen as two diagonal lines intersecting each other. Likewise, the Cross of St. Patrick was also drawn using two diagonal lines.

Not surprisingly, the official flag of England featured the Cross of St. George, who was also their beloved Patron Saint. Similarly, Scotland’s flag used the Cross of their own long-standing Patron Saint, St. Andrew. Meanwhile, the diagonal Cross of St. Patrick is prominently displayed on the flag of Ireland and, as everyone already knows, St. Patrick has been the Patron Saint of all Ireland for more than 1,000 years.

What most people don’t know about is that the literal combination of these three flags (England, Scotland, and Ireland) ends up looking exactly like the flag of Great Britain, the United Kingdom, which is commonly referred to as the Union Jack. The exact relationship between these three Nations, Flags, Crosses and Patron Saints can be seen as follows:

ENGLAND: National Flag has a vertical Red Cross on a pure White Background. Patron Saint is St. George

SCOTLAND: National Flag has a diagonal White Cross on a pure Blue Background. Patron Saint is St. Andrew

IRELAND: National Flag has a diagonal Red Cross on a pure White Background. Patron Saint is St. Patrick.

UNITED KINGDOM: Imperial Flag has four White/Red-Colored Lines (one horizontal, one vertical, two diagonal) which are perfectly crossing one another on a pure Blue background, commonly known as the Union Jack.

As can be seen, quite literally, and as history itself has shown, the successful attempt at uniting three Saints. three nations, and three flags has not been easy to say the least. Two major forces have been at work which can be summarized as follows:

2) Christian Symbolism: St. George of ENGLAND’s Cross + St. Andrew of SCOTLAND’s Cross + St. Patrick of IRELAND’s Cross = The Union Jack Flag of the British Empire

As the pictures of the four different flags included here and shown below clearly illustrate, the Union Jack of Great Britain is an exact representation of the symbolic union between 3 Nations, 3 Patron Saints, and 3 Flags. Here are the specific equations.

This iconographic understanding of Nations, Flags, Saints, and Crosses, uniting into a single entity is no mere coincidence. Instead, it is a blatantly obvious example of the underlying power of the Judeo-Christian tradition still hard at work in building, protecting, and creating the Earthly Kingdom of God, whose rightful heir is His only Son, Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph (Jesus Christ).

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His Kingdom will have no end…

– The Nicene Creed, 325 A.D.

Put bluntly, there are many good reasons why the Sun never sets on the British Empire, the English-speaking Christian Kingdom of God. The Union Jack is just one of them.

‘Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’

– Jeremiah 23:29

The Opposition to Circumcision

No son of a man may be forcibly circumcised.

– Yebamoth 48a

Jews have seen anti-circumcision agitations previously in history, so this new early 21st century round of attempts to criminalize male circumcision should be seen as nothing new, but a perpetual cycle of clearly Pagan, anti-Biblical, attempts to destroy Judaism, and quite possibly Christianity as well.

Of course, there have been anti-circumcision movements before, but most Jews historically have continued the religious practice of circumcision even under the threat of death.

– The Jewish Journal – North Boston

A quick look at the internet shows that opponents of male circumcision are organized and their numbers are growing more numerous with each passing day. Their rhetoric has also became far more belligerent. In short, there is ample reason to worry about the future of circumcision, both in this country and around the world. Here is a small sampling of some of the more strident, and scary, websites dedicated to the enemies of circumcision:

Anti-Circumcision Quotes from an Online Search for ‘Circumcision’ on Google

– Circumcision. A Barbaric Practice, A Human Rights Violation…

– Circumcision Is Barbaric And Unnecessary. Jews Against Circumcision

– Do not circumcise, it is barbaric, primitive and a human rights violation. Circumcision is barbaric and…

– circumcision is barbaric…Also, check out the links for more info on this evil practice.

– Is circumcision a barbaric ritual that harms a child physically? Or is it a deep meaningful…

– When our son was born, my wife decided circumcision was barbaric, but my parents insisted it was an essential…

– Circumcision (Bris Milah) is a cruel, barbaric procedure that can traumatize…

– I do find that male circumcision is barbaric and totally pointless for christians…

– Why circumcision should be abhorred- Circumcision is a barbaric tradition with deep roots in religious dogmas, like infant baptism….

Thus, it should come as little surprise that the enemies of male circumcision are at it again both in California and Massachusetts. A recent ‘San Francisco measure proposes to make the circumcision of males under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail.’ Also, Santa Monica is discussing a similar proposal. This attempted prohibition against circumcision is especially worrisome to Jews. As one source notes bluntly:

[The] measure clearly is aimed at a particular part of the community, and there’s no doubt that this proposition knowingly targets Jews. Marc Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, had the matter exactly right when he said: “This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It’s unprecedented in Jewish life.”

– The Los Angeles Times

Out on the east coast, there is an effort to ban circumcision in Massachusetts where an anti-circumcision group has filed the Male Genital Mutilation Bill presented to the Massachusetts Legislature. The proposed new law ‘calls for a ban on circumcision for males under 18, unless medically necessary, and with no religious exemptions.’ The Jewish Journal of North Boston reports:

The leader of this current initiative, Matthew Hess, president of the group called the Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, was quoted in the Boston Herald (February 21, 2010) as saying “circumcision is painful and unnecessary, violates a baby’s human rights and decreases sexual sensation in mature males.”

– The Jewish Journal – North Boston

It should not be too far of a stretch to say that the motivation behind the move to ban circumcision in San Fransisco and elsewhere is clearly anti-Semitic and possibly indicates a serious, and perhaps enduring, hostility towards the Judeo-Christian God and the Biblical tradition.

It would have been nice to see the force behind the misguided anti-circumcision campaign in Santa Monica…voicing appropriate disgust, from a movement that created a repulsively anti-Semitic comic to advance its cause online.

– The Los Angeles Times

Luckily, the state government of California has managed to come to the rescue in the name of religious freedom, especially Jewish religious freedom for trained Rabbis to practice infant male circumcision. Specifically, ‘Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill prohibiting cities and counties from banning male circumcision, his office announced’ recently. More good news came when the San Francisco ballot measure meant to outlaw child circumcision there was struck down by ‘a judge in July [who] ordered the circumcision ban off the November ballot.’

Support against the enemies of circumcision also came from Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Democrat from Los Angeles, who got a bill passed unanimously that heads off future anti-circumcision laws and bans their implementation. Mr. Gatto publicly stated that bans on circumcision amounted to ‘an affront to the exercise of personal, medical and religious freedom.’

These small victories for the forces of circumcision should not be taken for granted as the avowed enemies of circumcision will most probably only grow that much stronger. This is especially true in a nation where the number of males being circumcised has dropped below 50%. Some of the opponents’ arguments against the practice of male circumcision include the following:

Opponents of circumcision liken it to “genital mutilation” – the forced removal of a healthy body part from an unconsenting child.

– The Miami Herald

Opponents of circumcision claim that the outdated procedure affords no medical benefits, that it causes unnecessary pain for infants, and that the lack of a foreskin may reduce sexual pleasure and performance.

– Wiki-Answers.com

Given the history of anti-circumcision movements, ‘Jewish groups have decried anti-circumcision efforts as anti-Semitic.’ This is probably accurate, but the enemies of circumcision are now using more sophisticated reasoning in order to have the procedure made illegal and to deny accusations of anti-Jewish bias. Here are some of them, followed by the rebuttals of male circumcision proponents:

Accusations of Circumcision Opponents

– the procedure is out-dated

– Has no medical benefits

– Causes unnecessary pain for infants

– Reduces sexual pleasure and performance

Advocates of Circumcision Findings

– The procedure is modern, clean, and hygenic

– May reduce cancer risk and other disorders

– Infant pain is slight and easily forgotten

– Does not affect either sexual pleasure or performance

One of the new opponents of circumcision, a Jewish professor named Ronald Goldman, began his opposition to Jewish circumcision sometime during the mid-1990s. He founded the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center which ‘serves to support the questioning of circumcision among Jews.’ Dr. Goldman has published two books, one entitled Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, and another book called Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. They have both met with success and now ‘both books have become primers on their subjects.’ Clearly, Ronald Goldman is an enemy of circumcision, who somehow envisions an uncircumcised Jewish future. One sources sums it:

Goldman says his organization decided to issue the statement because of the increased attention to the topic, accompanied by a general lack of awareness about the harm of circumcision. “There may be a misunderstanding of the reasons why many people question circumcision,” Goldman says. “We wanted to clarify that and take the opportunity to raise awareness about the practice.”

Dr. Goldman began his crusade after being made uncomfortable and a little nauseous at a traditional Jewish bris, an infant male circumcision ritual performed by a professional Rabbi. Ever since this ‘unfortunate’ encounter, Goldman has moved on to become a very well-organized and influential opponent of Jewish circumcision. Nonetheless, he claims that he wants ‘to assure Jews that questioning circumcision can be done respectfully and compassionately.’ The actual historical facts concerning Jewish male circumcision show Dr. Goldman’s concerns to be completely unfounded. As a reliable source writes:

Jews have circumcised tens of millions of their infant sons for over 3,000 years with few complications and without the dire pain, trauma, and other horrible effects claimed by opponents of circumcision.

– The Jewish Journal – North Boston

Another outspoken opponent of male circumcision is Dr. George C. Denniston, most probably a Gentile. He believes that history ‘shows that the arguments in favor of circumcision are questionable.’ He disparages studies that showed that circumcision may prevent cervical cancer in female sexual partners. Dr. George C. Dennistone also belittles the studies showing that circumcision can prevent urinary tract infection and penile cancer. Obviously, Dr. Denniston is a zealous enemy of circumcision and he makes this quite clear in the following statement:

Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does – certainly not the physician who should know better – since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent.

– Unnecessary Circumcision, by George C. Denniston, M.D.

Notice that he now insists that newborn infants have rights, which is absurd considering they are completely dependent upon their parents and other adults for survival. Dr. Denniston also defames circumcision as being ‘harmful’. He even goes to extreme lengths in ‘proving’ that circumcision causes harm to sexual function by quoting Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher from the Middle Ages! No, Dr. George Denniston’s motivations are easily seen in this closing argument:

Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians – many of whom have been circumcised themselves – are using their medical licenses to continue this contra­indicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself.

– Unnecessary Circumcision, by George C. Denniston, M.D.

As can be seen, the opponents of circumcision are growing bold and more dangerous everyday. Those who support circumcision and its practice, both religious and otherwise, need to become more vigilant and more wary in their understanding of the enemies of circumcision.

‘Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’

– Jeremiah 23:29

A man can never become a convert unless he has been circumcised.

– Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 46b

The Circumcised Future of Christianity

No son of a man may be forcibly circumcised.

– Yebamoth 48a

The coming age of Christian circumcision is meant to please neither Jews nor Muslims, but to please God and Jesus and to finally become a physical, as well as spiritual, member of the House of Abraham. All Christians are composed of a mind, a body and a soul. While God creates all souls circumcised from the start, it is now time for all Christians to circumcise their proud minds and to finally obey the Old Testament law by circumcising their male children from now on and unto eternity. This would allow all Christian Gentiles to share in the Covenant of Abraham and reap its many benefits and rewards. As the final, eternal law given to Abraham by the LORD God clearly states:

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

– Genesis 17:10

Christian Gentiles should never forget that their Pagan ancestors once considered the Jews to be a ‘barbaric’ tribe with ‘barbaric’ customs, most especially male circumcision. These same ancestors also practiced many different forms of sexual perversion including pedophilia and child prostitution. Here are just a few well-reasoned arguments using the Gospels as a reference as to why Christianity should now practice male circumcision, just like Jews and Muslims:

Theory — The Actual Gospels — Conclusion

I. In spite of later compromises, Jesus wanted all of his male followers to be circumcised, including Gentiles. — ‘For I say unto you, until Heaven and earth pass away, not one word or one letter will pass from the law, until everything has been fulfilled.’ – Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 — Heaven and earth have not passed away, therefore circumcision is still required for all male Hebrews

II. Jesus never wanted to change the old law, but to have all men learn and obey them. — ‘Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I have not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.’ – Matthew 5:17 — According to the law and prophets, all Christian males must fulfill them by being circumcised.

III. Circumcision is a law which all male Christians should teach and obey to the reach the highest seats in Heaven. — ‘Whoever breaks the least of the commandments, and teaches others to do so, will be the least in Heaven, but whoever obeys and teaches others to obey all of the law will be greatest in Heaven.’ – Matthew 5:19 — Even if circumcision is the least of the commandments, all male Christians should still obey and teach it.

IV. Christians must be as righteous as the most righteous of circumcised Jews to enter Heaven. — ‘Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ – Matthew 5:17-20 — No Christian, no matter how righteous, can enter Heaven until they are circumcised.

By Christian tradition, the Gospels have always been considered the final authority when it comes to deciding the laws and customs of Christianity. For many centuries now, it has not been illegal for Christians to circumcise their male children. In fact, there is ample historical evidence that, even before Christianity, at least some Gentile believers in the God of Israel would have their male children circumcised. They were known as God-fearers, and were a growing part of the pre-Christian Jewish community found throughout the Greco-Roman Empire.

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision.

– Titus 1:10

It is well known that, during the early centuries of Christianity, numerous Jewish-Christian families continued circumcising their male children while numerous Gentile Christians would also practice circumcision. It was only later that the Book of Acts, where circumcision was declared unnecessary, mainly through Paul’s influence, was included as an official part of the New Testament. All things being equal, the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels carry for more weight and are more authoritative than the Book of Acts.

In short, the decisions reached by Peter, Paul, and others were in direct contradiction to the words of Christ and should not be considered the last, and final, standards of Christian tradition. The decision to allow the Gentiles to remain uncircumcised may well have been a hasty, perhaps even a temporary, measure in order to gain more Gentile adherents who would otherwise have been turned away because of their refusal to circumcise themselves. Tragically, Christianity became a completely uncircumcised religious faith over the course of about 300 or so years.

They covered…the mark of their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves to wrongdoing.

– I Maccabees 1:15

The Gospels carries far more authority than any other books of the New Testament. It is obvious that Jesus wanted all the old laws to continue as a basic part of his new religious movement. That is partly why the early Church fathers retained all of the Jewish Bible and called it the Old Testament. The Gospels message is quite clear, ‘Jesus came to fulfill the law.’ One of the oldest and most important of those laws is that of circumcision.

With that in mind, it is now time for all Christians throughout to world to renew the covenant of Abraham by circumcising all their male children and to eventually make it a standard Christian practice. Unlike Judaism, Christians may utilize modern medical techniques to circumcise their foreskins. The Age of Maccabee Christianity has only just begun. Be not afraid of preaching the importance of male circumcision to all other Christians and even non-believers. From the beginning, circumcision was meant to be a Christian tradition. The Gospels have spoken and let no man claim that either Peter or Paul should take precedence over the words and commandments of Jesus Christ Himself.

Keep in mind that the Jewish Maccabees are seen as Saints by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches. Because of this, a future circumcised Christianity would not be a new tradition, but perhaps one of the oldest traditions of the Church, such as the early Church of Jerusalem led by St James. They practiced male circumcision as a integral part of their Christian faith. Given the ancient history of the Church, it would be more than appropriate to renew the tradition of circumcision among many, and perhaps all Christians, throughout the world. The future of Christianity is Hebrew, not Greek, as the following Biblical passages clearly show:

In those days there appeared in Israel men who were breakers of the law, and they seduced many people…They covered over the mark of their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves into wrongdoing.

– I Maccabees 1:11-15

Women who had their babies circumcised were put to death, in keeping with the decree, with the babies hung from their necks; their families also and those who had circumcised them were killed.

– I Maccabees 1:60-61

The King sent messengers with letter to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, ordering them to follow customs foreign to the land…to leave their sons uncircumcised, and to let themselves be defiled with every kind of impurity and abomination.

‘Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’

– Jeremiah 23:29

The doctrine of Purgatory, still an essential aspect of Roman Catholic Christianity as well as Orthodox Judaism, continues to be one of the most common sense Judeo-Christian traditions ever known. For almost two thousand years, the Catholic Church has believed that, just as Hell is meant for the very wicked and evil, Heaven is for the Saints and Martyrs of the world, individuals so righteous and perfect they most certainly merit immediate admittance into Paradise. Likewise, the Church has also taught that, because the vast majority of people are a complex mixture of goodness and evil, most Christian (and Jewish) believers will be going to Purgatory when they die, to a dark ghost world traditionally located below the earth, before they are allowed to move onward to the Kingdom of Heaven. This teaching is in accordance with what the Bible states about the LORD God. It reads as follows:

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments unto a thousand generations.

– Deuteronomy 7:9

The best way to understand Purgatory is to use the analogy of a tree. For just as a tree has numerous branches, some of which reach high up in the sky (Heaven), it also has roots that reach deep down into the earth (Purgatory). Science has shown that both roots and branches are necessary for the life of the tree. The branches (Heaven) are necessary to absorb the life-giving light of the sun, just as the roots (Purgatory) are essential for the collection of water. Without the branches (Heaven) the tree would be unable to sustain itself and grow, while without roots (Purgatory), the wind would be able to blow the tree over, causing it to perish.

The souls of the deceased may be likened to drops of water who fall down like rain (death) which are first taken up by the roots (Purgatory) and then finally make their way upwards to the branches (Heaven) which hang high above the earth. A tree (Afterlife) requires both roots (Purgatory) and branches (Heaven) in order to thrive and prosper.

Considering the fairly recent loss of Christian faith among the intellectual elites of both Europe and North America, it should be obvious that the tree of traditional Christianity has become somewhat sickly and may, in fact, be in real danger of perhaps dying. Indeed, the direst threat to the Christian religion happens to be coming, not from Jews or Muslims, but from sceptics, scoffers, and other apostates who are increasing in numbers and show an ever-increasing hostility to all things religious, especially Christianity. Many of them come from Protestant ancestry whose forefathers rejected Purgatory centuries ago. Is there a connection between the Protestant denial of Purgatory and the growing threats to Christian faith throughout the world? Yes there is, as two different sources clearly indicate:

The transformative event…which made it possible to repudiate tradition…in early-modern English and European culture-an event successfully obliterated from modern memory by early, deliberate acts of forgetting and by the decision of Renaissance politicians and gentry to rewrite history-was the abolition of Purgatory.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

Modernism seem[s] inversely parasitic on religion, and Christians object to it because it seems to deny the continuing vitality of their religion. Christianity still thrives, but at the margins, where it has been put by political leaders and cultural arbiters….In this essay I shall argue that crucial, irreversible steps in that direction were taken by the Chantries Act and Royal Injunctions of 1547 and by the Church of England’s declaration, in the Edwardian Prayerbook of 1549, that Purgatory did not exist and consequently that Christians should not mourn or pray for their dead.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

Tragically, many forms of Protestant Christianity continues to deny the existence of Purgatory. This is in total disregard for the ancient evidence that the religious doctrine of Purgatory was existent before the advent of Christianity and has its roots in pre-Christian Judaism, Purgatory was not the invention of the Catholic Church, but was merely the continuation of pre-existing Jewish theology. Early Protestants denied this calling it a fiction created by the Catholic Church, a mere ‘Romish Doctrine’. One source notes the following:

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

– The Book of Common Prayer, Article 22, Church of England

One should also remember that, at first, Martin Luther freely accepted the doctrine of Purgatory only to change his mind later on, mainly due to political reasons. In addition, the great Christian thinker C.S. Lewis is on record stating that he too believed in Purgatory, even though he was an English Protestant by birth and upbringing. Thus, it seems quite a shame that the vast majority of Protestant Christians have remained in denial in Purgatory for nearly the past 500 years. In truth, it was not meant to be this way as one source noters aptly:

Theo Brown suggests that when the Anglican Church promulgated its repudiation of “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory” in the first Book of Common Prayer (1549), the bishops did not intend to dispose of Purgatory altogether, but only to correct well-known abuses.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

Given the current violence, immorality, and aitheism of today’s society, it seems more than obvious that the Holy Spirit of the modern era is not good at all, but evil, and may well be a vampire, a demon, or some other form of evil spirit in disguise. For the this reason, it is time for the world, and for the English language, to return to the tradition of referring to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost, which emphasize its links to the age-old realm of Purgatory.

After the English Reformers dispensed with Purgatory, however, it was no longer clear to anyone where ghosts came from. Educated people were inclined to doubt their existence, or to think that they were demons in disguise. There was, nevertheless, a great popular outburst of superstitious ghost lore among the common people beginning at mid-century. Theo Brown amply documents this outbreak and associates it with the sudden abolition of Purgatory.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

Protestant Today —> Protestant Tomorrow

Heaven or Hell —> Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell

The Holy Spirit —> The Holy Ghost

Throughout the world, belief in ghosts, namely the immaterial spirits of the dead, has been been a standard aspect of numerous different cultures, including those who were not distinctly Judeo-Christian. For the Catholic Church, both before and after the Protestant Reformation, the constant occurence of ghost sightings by the common people signified a sure sign in the continued existence of Purgatory. Put simply, ghosts were believed to come from Purgatory, the Underworld of Christianity. Two different sources state the following:

Before the Reformation, it was common belief among everyone from theologians to peasants that if ghosts appeared to the living they came from Purgatory, not from Heaven or Hell.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

Purgatory would become the prison in which ghosts were normally incarcerated, though they might be allowed to escape now and then to briefly haunt those of the living whose zeal in their behalf was insufficient.

– Birth of Purgatory, by Jacques Le Goff

It is to be hoped that the continued Protestant denial in Purgatory will soon come to an end. This act could well cause a resurgence in the Christian faith throughout the world, as more agnostics and other waverers finally accept the common sense Christian doctrine of Purgatory, which means salvation for the many, rather than the few. It’s time for Protestantism to admit they made a grave mistake and are now back to share in the eternity which is the Catholic Christian faith.

The abrupt and, to a large degree, forcible dismantling of Purgatory at mid-century, together with its deep psychic resonances among the common people, its elaborate cultural associations, and its extensive institutional supports, had drastic consequences for society and for the individuals who formed and were formed by society. Before the Reformation, few countries had a deeper investment (financial, cultural, and spiritual) in Purgatory and in commemoration of the dead than England. After the Reformation, few countries turned their backs more abruptly on Purgatory and, with it, on their own dead.

– Hamlet and the Ghost of Purgatory: Forgetting the Dead, by Anthony Low, Culture Wars Magazine

The Maccabee Laws

Ten Commandments
I. I am the LORD your God. You will have no other gods but Me.
II. You will not use the name of the LORD in vain.
III. You will honor the Sabbath day.
IV. You will honor your father and mother.
V. You will not kill.
VI. You will not commit adultery
VII. You will not steal.
VIII. You will not lie.
IX. You will not envy your neighbor’s wife.
X. You will not envy your neighbor’s property.